Harpies Travel In Flocks...

An interesting few days 'round here. More traffic and comments than I'm used to. Heh.

So here's the story...

The other day, I was reading The Other McCain, clicking back and forth through a discussion of feminism. He managed to anger some conservative women who self-identify as feminists by arguing against the notion that conservative feminism exists. (See Barbara Kay piece on Sarah Palin and feminism to see where this started.)

McCain offered up the analogy: "Feminism is to women as Mafia is to Sicilians",and stated the opinion (which I happen to agree with) that men aren't welcomed as critics of feminism. He went on to lament the dearth of conservative women criticizing feminism.

He took snippets of a comment from one of the women, interspersed them through a paragraph of his own snark, and ended it with the statement

"Implied: Any woman who defends him is a right-brained ignoramus."

Well, anyone who reads this blog knows I have a perverse sense of humor. When I read that, I thought, "Heh. Guess that's me."

See, I've linked McCain in several posts about feminism. (I've even pointed out where he and Amanda Marcotte have an opinion in common.) He's one of the few men with the nerve to take on the femininnies who also has the skill to do it well -- and with humor, which may be what I enjoy most about it. The point is, I generally agree with him on the topic (not that he needs my defense... and my little blog probably doesn't even amount to a blip on his traffic) so when he writes something on the topic that gets my wheels turning, I post.

So, amused by the fact that doing so would label me -- in McCain's words -- a right-brained ignoramus, I agreed with the notion that Sarah Palin is not a feminist. (To my mind, she's not. I think it's a question of semantics, but I would never refer to her as a feminist.) And then I went on to talk about leftist feminism.

Hooboy.

I forgot two important facts. First, feminists (of any stripe apparently) brook no argument. There can be no dissent. Second, when dealing with women,regardless of what they say or what treatment they demand from men, not all women are equal. (More on that in a minute.)

Oh, wait... I forgot something else.

Harpies travel in flocks.

The first thing probably requires no explanation. I've posted before that I find it nearly impossible to have an exchange with radical feminists... not because I don't want to, but because they aren't interested in talking to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. I was actually told once "If you don't believe in rape culture, there can't be dialogue between us." (Never mind the obvious question, which is "How the hell can you convince anyone you're right if you won't talk to anyone who doesn't already think you're right?!") It's like trying to talk to a kindergartner who has their fingers in their ears yelling "Neener! Neener! I can't hear you!"

Well, unbeknownst to me, some "conservative feminists" are worse. They don't shout that they can't hear you... they want you to shut up, period. I haven't received a fraction of the venom and animosity from the leftists that the righties were eager to spew at me.

The second thing may be a surprise to some. Aren't feminists (liberal, conservative, Venusian, whatever...) about all women? Wouldn't it seem pointless, not to mention hypocritical, to demand that all men treat all women equally only to turn around and make value judgements against your fellow females?

Why, yes. Yes it would.

But it doesn't stop 'em. Indeed, the one shrieking the loudest about how she was wronged, taken out of context, mocked on the internet! has made some really questionable remarks.

For example, all the ruckus started because the quote that inspired my post came (loosely) from comments she'd made, filtered through the lens of McCain's brain. It wasn't her original words that prompted my post, but McCain's interpretation. Now, since I've been accused of being passive-aggressive and backpedaling, let me be clear... I don't care if that wording came to McCain in a goddamn dream. I wasn't interested in or attempting to quote the source of his inspiration for those words.

But since she claims I misrepresented her (and since she's called me passive-aggressive and a disingenuous bitch, fuck you very much), let's look at her words:

"A lot of left-brained, educated women are infuriated by Stacy’s line of reasoning – we know ourselves to be equal to men (Stacy’s line about equality implying interchangeability aside, because they really are not the same thing at all), and don’t see why the laws and our society should not reflect that."

Left-brained, educated women. The type she (and leftist feminists) believe are the pinnacle of enlightened womanhood. Way to speak for all your sisters! And... does that not imply exactly what McCain wrote? Who does disagree with you? (Other than me, I guess.)

McCain also wrote (another time):

Permit me to draw down upon myself the fury of every woman within reach of a keyboard by explaining what I think motivates bourgeois women writers to claim the “feminist” label:
When you say “feminist,” what you really mean to say is “intelligent, college-educated, career woman.”

Nailed it in one.

Another from the shrieker:

"The other thing is that I know plenty of babycake women - sweetie pies (not genuinely kind women) who have cute hair, cute nails, are smart-but-not-as-smart, and otherwise entirely non-threatening. They pretend that their brand of "ambition" and brains is the best that can be expected of women. Then they can't figure out why ambitious women condescend to them."

See that? Certain women are deserving of condescension. (And shockingly, it seems being not-as-smart and cute are factors in whether you get a taste of her derision. The lefties go after the same ones, by the way. Interesting, since brains and looks are traits we're born with -- or not -- and therefore shouldn't be used to determine worth...)

So, color me unimpressed with this version of "feminism" also.

The third thing I mentioned... about the harpies. Yeah. Did you ever see a group of chickens circle another chicken (which they've determined through henhouse logic to be an outsider) and peck it to death? They ring it in and, clucking like mad all the while, literally peck the offender apart, one beakful at a time.

That's basically what happens when you piss off a harpy. The entire flock charges in senseless, blind loyalty and attacks.

I inadvertently offended one of them, by linking a quote that wasn't even hers. And it didn't matter that I offered a good faith explanation that the first quote hadn't been my target. (Explaining yourself is passive-aggressive, doncha know?) It didn't even matter that the first commenter of the little group lied and falsely accused me of distorting her positions, when I never touched on her positions. (You still owe an apology, but I don't expect one. You're intellectually dishonest, and you know it.)

No... they were righteously indignant, and they were by-gawd gonna let me have it.

Well, let me be as clear as possible:

When I decide to be aggressive, there's nothing fucking passive about it. If it was about you, I'd have come at you. You don't intimidate me and, like Amanda Marcotte, you don't speak for me. I don't have to answer to you, and I could give a shit for your approval.

You comment on my blog that my discourse saddens you. Gimme a break. You ran out of anything intelligent to say, and started making yeast infection jokes! Yeah, that's debate! I'm so impressed.

You're like high school girls. Catty, cliquish, judgemental, and with an extremely overinflated sense of your own importance. Need proof? This is directed to me:

"Then you pull the passive-aggressive move of the century and tell the lovely woman who sticks up for me that she's getting bent out of shape over nothing.
Scratch, you made this war. The fact that the fallout makes a Japanese nuclear reactor look safe is a problem that rests at your own feet, with your own smarmy post."

A war!!!1!! Predicated by the passive-agressive move of the century, no less! (Which makes me wonder where you've been all your life. Seriously? My little blurb was historic?) And the fall-ass-over-teakettle-laughing best part?

The fallout makes a Japanese nuclear reactor look safe!

Oh me! Oh my! Oh goodness gracious!

BAHAHA!

Get over yourself, punkin. I put more worry into what I needed from the store Sunday than I have into this little dustup.

So.

Have I learned anything at all from this?

Well, yes, now that you mention it.

I've learned that some conservatives who call themselves feminists could give lessons in bitch to the leftist feminists. I've learned that some folks who'd like to consider themselves intellectuals aren't above genitalia jokes when they run out of substance. I've learned that explanations are passive-aggressive. I've learned that not everyone appreciates my sense of humor.

And I've learned that blogging is more dangerous than nuclear radiation.

All right. Ha. Couldn't write that last sentence with a straight face.

I've also learned to ignore what I read about blogging etiquette. See, a good while back, I read a piece about it, and -- since the blogger who wrote it is well-known and fairly respected -- I tried to learn and remember it. One of the things it touched upon was linking back to sources. Well, now that I've been excoriated and one of the excuses is "You linked my post!", I'm rethinking what I read back then. If you notice, I haven't linked anyone but RSM here. (The quotes I offered are in the comments sections from this blog and the one that linked to McCain and myself. Go look 'em up yourself.)

I'd like to add, however, that I find it a beautiful irony. The post I read on etiquette and try to adhere to when I blog was written by none other than the blogger who's pissed that I linked her.

And I find that fucking funny as well.

Right-Brained Ignoramus

I've been following the back-and-forth between RSM and some female conservative bloggers on the topic of feminism and the difference between Sarah Palin feminism (if such a thing exists) and radical leftist feminism.

I've read the posts by Stacy and Little Miss Attila, as well as the Barbara Kay piece that started the discussion, thinking about where I come down on the issue.

Personally, I think it's a question of semantics.

To my mind, the word feminism refers only to the leftist movement which I consider to be not about the advancement of women, but the settling of grudges. I'm aware that Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist... and I happen to disagree with her.

But I do generally agree with McCain when he takes on feminists. And it was with great interest that I read his opinion on female conservative writers who've wanted to argue that their feminism is different, and that he does a disservice by not recognizing that fact. He quotes a comment by Roxanne De Luca as he defines the case against him:

"...I am doing a "disservice to the conservative movement"? Because my "line of reasoning" is allegedly offensive to "left-brained, educated women"? (Implied: Any woman who defends him is a right-brained ignoramus!)

Well... enter right-brained ignoramus.

That's right.

I. Am. A. Girl.

Rather, a woman. Whatever... I am the proud owner of my very own vagina.

Oh. And I also have a brain.

That's my problem with feminism. I have a mind of my own, and I don't need to be told I'm a victim. Or that society must change utterly for my convenience. Or that I need advocates in order to be just as good as any man.

In nearly forty years walking around on this planet, I have never felt oppressed. I have never felt as though I couldn't do anything a man might (with the exception of my inability to "write my name in the snow", which is kind of a bummer).

I'm an at-home mom with a busload of kids, and I don't feel that I've wasted my life or missed out on a career. Instead, like many women in my position, I have sacrificed things I consider of lesser value in order to do something I consider both important and rewarding.

The feminists won't recognize that. So they don't speak for me.

Now, I realize I'm probably not McCain's vision of the ideal conservative spokeswoman. I'm a social libertarian, and a scofflaw one at that. And since I have less education (formal or informal) on organized feminism and I tend to call them names (although I prefer femininny to feminazi), I probably qualify as a ranting, random ignoramus like he mentions in his post.

But I am a woman. And I believe feminism is a heinous movement which serves to divide the sexes and denigrate men. I believe the completely wrongheaded ideas of feminism are dangerous to women -- especially young women who buy into the notion that enough activism and sister solidarity will render the world a safe place to be a sheep.

McCain wrote:

"...I was born with a penis, and no one born with a penis can be permitted to write with authority as a critic of feminism."

All right then. I was not born with a penis. And while I'm not sure how much authority I project when writing, I am a critic of feminism.

I've never mentioned my gender on this blog. I didn't want it to be about me personally, but about what was on my mind at any given moment. Though I gotta say, I damn near posted it once... back when PunditMom accused me of "unsubstantiated mockery" and offered to defend me if the New York Times ever started mistreating men.

(Note to PM: On rereading that post, I still feel you're guilty of a silly overreaction and have no one to blame for getting pegged as a "mommy blogger".)

And I happen to agree with McCain wholeheartedly. We don't need conservative feminists. We don't need feminists, period. Rather than bemoan the young women lost to the left because conservatism doesn't embrace feminist nonsense, we should be counteracting the effects of leftist teachings by telling young women that feminism is a flawed concept that demands unequal treatment in the name of equality, and leaves no room for common sense.

Why this is a problem is a mystery to me. We don't have black conservatives arguing for affirmative action, reparations and a "reclaiming" of the NAACP. Instead, they are wise enough to know that an ideology of victimhood has been one of their greatest obstacles -- and they stand against it. Conservative women should take a similar view of feminism.

He may not get agreement from "conservative feminist" women who can't see past their own gender... but he's got this former-liberal, apatheist, socially libertarian, female right-brained ignoramus firmly in his corner. (On this subject, at least.)

--------------
Update:
Better than a link.
A whole post from the man himself! Thank you!
Welcome folks from The Other McCain!

Oh, gee. Another, from Little Miss Attila.
--------------
Update 2.0:
I'm not done.

Femininny Declares "All Women Are Fat!" or something...

(Well, I agree on at least two counts... one of the women in this post is a fatass, and the other is a fathead...)

I recently started following some feminist bloggers, after the Assaunge rape allegations brought their shrieking back to the headlines. I mentioned at the time that I've successfully ignored these "wymyn" (or something) for most of my adult life. Now that they've caught my attention, I can't stop. It's like a train wreck that never ends... Every time you think you've dredged the depths of teh stoopid and whiny wanna-be-a-victim mentality (Yes, wanna. These people choose to see themselves as downtrodden, and therefore they are - in feminist fantasy land, at least.), they amaze me with something new.

This morning, femininny Amanda Marcotte put up a piece taking Rush Limbaugh to task. For calling Michelle Obama fat.

Marcotte actually writes:

"In a patriarchy, all women are "fat", i.e. they take up too much space and have physical bodies that are coded as Other and therefore disgusting."

Um... No.

Not all women are fat. None of the females who reside under my roof are fat, or even moderately overweight.

Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is thick indeed. While she's not morbidly obese, she's a biggun', all right. And the idea that only a man or a brainwashed victim of the patriarchy can see that is ludicrous.

I posted about my youngest daughter's reaction to the First Lady. A healthy, active, fit & trim child, she does not respond well at all to Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. The PSAs infuriate her. The very first time she saw the spot, my precocious one yelled at the television:

"Why don't you try it yourself, Fat Ass!"

During our discussion about it, she stuck to her guns. "Why is she telling me what to eat and what to do?! I'm not fat, she's fat!" ("Hypocrisy" may not be part of her vocabulary -- which I'll be sure to remedy -- but she certainly grasps the concept.)

Would this femininny honestly be willing to argue that my six-year-old is a part of the patriarchal oppressor society? Does that make my little girl "The Man"?

--As a side note, this child's stated goal for adulthood is world domination, with herself as supreme ruler of the universe. When she gets rolling about it at the dinner table, it's both hilarious and a little frightening. I can promise the femininnies, despite being born with female parts this girl is no one's victim. She's a badass. You whiners should take a lesson.--

Anyway... I'm not writing this to defend Limbaugh. I'm not really a fan. However, I might point out that while he's also large, he's not telling my kids what to eat.

No, I'm writing this because I am once again astounded by the contortions of logic the feminists are capable of. Admittedly, I'm not mentally limber enough to pull off some of the yoga-poses-of-rationality that Marcotte can accomplish... but her basic premise seems to be that Michelle Obama is a woman (womyn? pffft),and so she is fat because all women are fat because men need to suppress and oppress them and see them as disgusting... or something.

See? Fail. I can't even fake an understanding of this nonsense.

And speaking of mental gymnastics, I would also like to point out (because it amuses me to no end) that Marcotte closes her piece by agreeing with a man she no doubt considers a neaderthalish patriarchal oppressor.

Marcotte:

"A vulva is considered so desirable that entire magazines are dedicated just to showing it, but if it has a stray hair or labia that aren't the exact required size, it suddenly becomes culturally designated as disgusting and women are coached to feel so ashamed they should spend tons of money waxing it and even getting surgery to "fix" it."

Robert Stacy McCain:

(on surgery)

"Ouch. And, honestly, what a tragedy. I’m struggling to find a way to say this in a PG-13 way, so I’ll just say it: Lots of guys like that extra helping of cauliflower. IYKWIMAITYD.

More to the point, form follows function, natural is better, and it’s bizarre to think that women now fear being judged by the aesthetics of their genitalia."

(on waxing)

"I hadn't seen a Playboy magazine in a long time until a couple years ago when, by happenstance, I encountered someone's collection of recent issues and was stunned to discover that deforestation of the pubic delta had become de rigeur...

There is something bizarre (and arguably wrong) about glorifying an "ideal" that has no naturally-occurring example."

Heh. Now I have to figure out whether RSM is a femininny, or Marcotte is a patriarchal oppressor.

......
(Interestingly, in comment #6, Marcotte uses the term "butthurt", which would seem to put her in the "Rape Culture" camp she's always bitchin' about. It's official... she's a tool of the patriarchy. Pun intended.)

Feminists: Snake Oil Saleswomyn

Well, I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days.

When I picked a name for this blog, I was trying to reflect what it is I wanted to write about. What "Makes My Brain Itch". By that, I meant the things I see or read or experience that stick in my head and buzz around in there, occasionally distracting me, but always sticking with me and demanding to be considered from one angle or another.

Well, feminism makes my brain itch. More than that, over the past week there've been moments I'm tempted to lay my head down beside the keyboard and pour a bottle of Drano in one ear. (Don't get your hopes up, I'm speaking metaphorically. Sorta.)

I've known for most of my adult life that I disagree with the basic tenets of feminism. That's because, to my mind, it's not about uplifting women to equal status but about knocking down men. When I saw a blogger I generally enjoy being set upon by feminists for remarks about the Assange rape accusations, I jumped in -- not because I'm a member of any RSM hallelujah choir, but because the attacks seemed unfair. (I've yet to meet a person I would consider a supporter of rape. It seemed, and still does, a disgusting remark to make about someone.)

Next thing I know, one of the feminists I linked is tweeting about me. (And, by the way, in case you didn't know... I'm an assface blogger. Are tolerant liberals sweet? And this from a blogger who prides herself on living "cruelty free"!) I wouldn't mind the tweet... if it wasn't bullshit. According to The Opinioness of the World:



Except I didn't write that. Nor did I imply such a thing. Go read what I wrote.

Getting an idea how they work yet? I am. Now.

An exchange with another feminist ended abruptly when I told her I don't believe in rape culture.

I don't believe in rape culture. Hadn't, in fact, heard of such a thing until I started following the tweets on #mooreandme #rapeinmedia and #rapeculture. But, in fairness, I went looking to learn more about it. (I was helped by this post at American Power, where Donald Douglas was apparently in a similar position. Interesting links... including this primer on Rape Culture 101.)

Turns out, the problem is me.

I once wrote about David Brooks, and his thoughts on the educated class versus the ignorant, uneducated yahoos like myself. Well, it turns out that the reason I can't grasp feminism - or rape culture - or patriarchal society - is also that I'm ignorant. That's right. Per Melissa McEwan:

"And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism."

See that? I don't understand sexism because I didn't waste tens of thousands of my parents' dollars sitting through "Womyns' Studies" programs. Because I have not sufficiently immersed myself, I'm a piss-poor translator. Or something.

What horseshit.

I've been a living, breathing human being for several decades now. In that time, I've been an avid observer of my fellow humans. I'm pretty sure if I were actually living in a culture of oppression, I'd have noticed -- with or without a college degree.

And I'll tell ya something else: I don't need a college degree to know that twisting someone's words to portray them as saying something they didn't makes you a damn liar. (That's right, Opinioness. I'm talking to you.) I see now that it doesn't matter what Stacy McCain originally said. Why? Because it doesn't matter what I said. They misrepresent in an attempt to create a villain, because you can't have a victim without one.

These women have invested time and money into being taught to think like victims. But when you believe that the world is against you, when you buy into some cultural conspiracy to hold you back, you are creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Assange himself, in a recent interview, said "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." I gotta say, from my reading the last few days, everything about feminism is starting to look like a hornets' nest. And I'm learning that if you bump that nest, they'll try to sting you. (Ask Moe Tkacik.)

I'm going to wrap this up by reiterating a previous statement:

There is nothing wrong with women making wise choices. I'm not trying to bring women down by saying that they should be smart enough to asses their situation, that's a compliment. I clearly have more faith in individual women than your average feminist. You will never succeed in making the world a harmless place, so there is no shame in being aware of and cautious about real dangers. I tweeted (to zero replies):

"Does being a feminist mean you have to check your brain at the door?! Just because you SHOULDN'T be raped doesn't mean you WON'T be! Think!"

I stand by that. The feminists can chirp all they want about a rape culture, but it's the culture of willful blindness that's more dangerous to women. They know that. It's why they're reduced to lies and misrepresentations. Feminists are snake oil saleswomyn, and what they're selling is victimhood.

Feminists are more dangerous than Assange and McCain combined

So, yesterday I put up a piece about fact that Julian Assange stands accused of rape (based on the loosest possible interpretation of the word), and yet RSM of The Other McCain is the one on trial. In my opinion, it's actually more of a witch hunt, but be that as it may...

I was so pissed by the feminazi responses to his posts (and the comments on their blogs) that I didn't really address the original statements that stirred up the trouble. McCain has "walked it back" a bit since his first remarks... but should he have?

I don't think so, anyway.

He's simply saying that:

"If you tumble into a random hook-up with no prior knowledge of the guy’s reputation and he turns out to be a selfish brute whose standard modus operandi is repulsive, dangerous or painful, in what sense are you a victim of anything except your own stupidity?"

Some activities carry inherent risk. Among them, getting into a private (even if not sexual), secluded situation with a near stranger. Sure, you have the right... But it is wise? Is it safe?

You have the right to live in a trailer in Texas. Odds are, you won't get sucked into a tornado. But, c'mon... you've seen The Weather Channel just like the rest of us -- unless your cable was out due to your "house" being stuck in a tree, that is. Your right to do something doesn't take away the risks, which you should plan for accordingly.

You have the right to scuba dive with -- and hand-feed -- sharks. But again, c'mon... you've seen Jaws. You probably won't be devoured even as you drown. But since Peta has been as yet unsuccessful in their effort to make sharks vegan, the possibility exists and should be accounted for.

So sure... You have the right to tumble into the sheets with someone you picked up on brief acquaintance. You probably haven't just locked yourself into an apartment with Ted Bundy's apprentice. Or a serial rapist. Or a raging case of herpes. But the risk is there. Period. And, as above, it should be accounted for in your plans.

If you don't know someone, you don't know what they're capable of. And if you put your safety and health in the hands of someone you don't know, you can't predict the outcome.

The feminists do not want to accept this as fact. They would cry out that women have the right to behave as men -- to sleep with whomever they please, in whatever situation they please. Their disgust with McCain is based on his assertions that such behaviors expose women to risk and possible abuse/exploitation. (Which is completely correct.) The problem with the feminist mindset on this is that it does not take into account basic biological facts.

Men are, in general, larger and stronger than women.

Instead of reminding women of this -- and teaching them to take their risks with this basic thought in mind -- they want to emasculate men so that women are safe to act without thinking and, therefore, without consequence. Women are now equal to men in all ways but biological, but instead of accepting what evolution has produced and encouraging women to plan accordingly, the feminists want to push that inconvenient issue aside and put everyone on a level field. Since they demand women should be able to act without consideration -- and they can't negate the risks by making women bigger and stronger -- they try another tactic:

The pussification of the American male. Feminism has brought about a generation of waxed, moisturized metrosexual men who aren't afraid to cry -- but who would be worthless to protect you from a mugger. (Funny, though... when it comes to "hookups" these soft, smooth, fashionable men are often thrown over in favor of "bad boys", further proving that at a base biological level, most women still desire actual men.)

So, if feminists can't acknowledge the possible risks in stranger hookups, where do they see danger? The following quote is from Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, and is lifted from McCain's post:

“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”

Never mind the idea that pro-family equals pro-rape. McCain addressed that. These advocates of "female sexual power" are under the impression that married women use sexual favors as a means to support themselves. Or rather, not themselves, because their selves are absorbed into the self of the husband.

Is there a single married woman in America that doesn't find this idea offensive? In a good marriage, sex isn't exchanged for anything. It's shared. Either these feminists are not married, or they don't know what happens in a good marriage. In their world, a loving husband is far more dangerous and sinister than some stranger picked up in a bar.

While the feminists rant about McCain and his (accurate) statements, they're actually guilty of doing more harm to women than all the McCains, Assanges and even Bundys of the world. By teaching women -- especially younger generations -- that the right to do something automatically makes it safe, they are creating a culture of carelessness... and all the danger that entails.

They want to equate McCain's remarks with the old "she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" nonsense. That's not what he said. I read his remarks more like this:

If you walk around the zoo wearing a blindfold and accidentally stumble into the lion's cage, perhaps you'd have been safer with your eyes uncovered and your brain turned on. Since you can't make the lion not prefer the taste of flesh, it's in your best interest to see where the cage is and walk around it.

Makes more sense than trying to make a sissy out of the lion so you can walk where you damn please.

____________
UPDATE 12/24: Welcome, readers of The Other McCain! A link from the man himself. Thanks!

While I'm not ungrateful, I'm a little puzzled that he chose to highlight this bit:

Makes My Brain Itch laments the “pussification” of American men. Actually, there’s something more complex at work.

It's the same line Tweeted by one of the feminists I wrote about above:

The Opinioness
…(@scratchermmbi) laments the "pussification" of men, thinks women & their risky behavior bring rape on themselves. #Mooreandme #rapeinmedia

I mentioned that as a side effect... and frankly, I thought it was the least of the points I was trying to make. I guess if that's what you took away from it, fine. I just didn't expect that line to be my thesis statement.


-And a belated thanks to Charles G. Hill at Dustbury, for the link. Welcome!

-------------------------
UPDATE 1/02/11: I see the feminists are popping in from the #mooreandme tag...

Well, since you're here -- and probably aren't going to like what you read anyway -- you may as well check out the rest of my posts on feminism here, here, and especially here. Cheers!

Assange accused of rape, but it's The Other McCain on trial

I may be the only person on the innerwebs who hasn't chimed in on Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I wasn't going to touch it, for reasons of my own. I've followed the coverage of the leaks, the accusations of sexual misconduct and the general blogging on the topic with my mouth shut, so to speak.

But the mini blog war over it, now... That's bringing up some opinions that, frankly, piss me off.

Today at The Other McCain, RSM has a piece in which he responds to an unnamed Republican communication strategist who has sent him some rather pointed (pointless?) questions. The guy is getting hammered on this topic by a number of bloggers and pundits.

Now, let me state right here that I don't agree with everything Stacy McCain writes. He's a social conservative, whereas my own leanings are libertarian. I'm not amused by his stance on the repeal of DADT : "So we now approach the day when uniformed service personnel — including ranking officers — will march in the Gay Pride Parade next to Dykes on Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." I disagree with his theory as to why Kim Kardashian is unmarried: "Perhaps someone should share with Kim Kardashian that old-fashioned advice about “free milk and a cow.” (I'm inclined to think it's more that most men don't picture marrying some woman who got nailed on video tape - and all his friends have seen it...) Just two examples.

But I gotta say, on this Assange rape situation, I think he's right on the mark.

It’s a he-said/she-said situation, and how did Assange’s victims get themselves into that predicament? By hooking up with an asshole.

Actually, I think McCain's statements are almost mild. I'm going to go further, feminists and apologists be damned.

I think these women are probably full of shit.

Allow me to put on my fireproof suit and elaborate...

I went back and reread the Guardian piece about the police report and the actual accusations. I have several points that I find troublesome... but you want to know the number one problem I have with it?

Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

That's GOT to be the first time I've heard of a report of rape which included a value judgement on the quality of the sex.

Not only did he rape me, Your Honor, he sucked at it!

Rape is not sex. Rape is an act of dominance and violence. I find it impossible to believe that any woman who has been physically victimized in such a manner would equate it with sex, and then compare it to her other sexual experiences. It's certainly not SOP to ask rape victims whether they came, or whether their attacker was well hung. That little ditty bothers me more than the other tidbits...

Like this:

Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

She didn't want to go along, but she'd already gone along so she went a little further. But now it's a problem. Got that?

Here's another:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.

Bovine excrement. A condom is noticeable. Period.

OK, last one:

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

So the "victim" was joking about the possibility of turning a profit from being raped? Hmmmph.

If these portrayals by The Guardian are accurate, these women have zero credibility.

Stacy McCain doesn't need me to defend him. (Pity him if he does, as I'm not always reliable.) But the attacks against him are a little alarming. He's been called a misogynist and someone who supports rape - pretty heavy accusations for a guy who even keeps his "cheesecake" posts PG-13. It strikes me as unnecessary and unfair. He says his main point is this:

Promiscuity makes women vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and disease. This is not my opinion, but a statement of fact.

There is nothing offensive about that statement. It's plain truth. These attacks on McCain for making them are not only not helpful, they're harmful. While nobody sane blames the victim in a rape, political correctness must not demand that we can't admit there are risk factors and teach women to avoid them.

As for me, I'm also not implying that Assange's accusers asked for or deserved it.

I'm flat out stating that there's something fishy about the whole damn thing, and the reported behavior of these women calls their objectives and actions into question.

So.

Them's my thinks on it.

Fireproof suit off and back on the hanger. Let 'er rip.

-----------------
Updated 12/23: I'm not done. Read on.

DADT = Flouncing Admirals?

The Other McCain is one of my favorite blogs - one of a dozen or so I check in on every day. Usually, I find I agree with a lot of what I read there...

Yesterday's post about the repeal of DADT was not only an opinion I disagree with completely, it's an example of where the conservative right loses me (again) on social issues.

Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a Navy admiral flouncing down Castro Street in full uniform in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, right next to Dykes On Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I have to say (respectfully, because I do generally enjoy his work) that this faux-poll question by RSM strikes me as disingenuous at best. Do conservatives sincerely believe if we repeal a wrong-headed policy, this will be the result?

I don't happen to be gay. And I'm hardly a fan of some of the things that happen in your typical San Fran Pride Parade... But I can not understand - or get behind - forcing people to deny a fundamental truth about their personality in order to voluntarily put their lives on the line for their country. It's not as if they aren't gays currently serving honorably in our military. There are, and we all know it. It's just that they can't SAY they're gay.

I've posted before about this issue. I've received emails from the right that made my blood boil at their homophobic rhetoric. I've addressed my feelings about the over-the-top displays at some Pride Parades and other events.

I've even tried to be crystal clear that although I oppose Kevin Jennings' position in the school system (something I keep reading about in connection to DADT - as though the two issues weren't apples and oranges) that my opposition to Jennings has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

But here, again, I find myself feeling alienated by conservatism as it applies to social issues.

I have a sincere question. I don't necessarily expect an answer from any reader (or the man who wants to be my congressman come November - I emailed him the same question), but I'm going to ask:

You're all about smaller government when it comes to taxes, entitlement programs, spending... all important things I agree with you on 100%. Why then, when it comes to what should more properly be church- or family-based moral discussions, do you suddenly have no problem with government involvement? You want the federal government to define the term "marriage", and you want homosexuals kept silent if they choose to serve YOU by enlisting.

I'm struggling to understand this...

David Brooks - Educated Idiot

I read the NYTimes piece by David Brooks yesterday. You know... the one where he breaks political disagreement down into the "educated class" and the rest of us ignorant, uneducated yahoos who don't know enough to listen to our betters.

Now, I already didn't like this guy. He's conservative like I'm a Siamese twin. (Meaning: Not at all, and only a blind fool would believe otherwise.) I've already addressed his less than stellar article on independent voters, and I was all set to rip into this latest bit of condescending, elitist crap.

I'm not the only one... Seems quite a few bloggers want a piece of Brooks this week. The Other McCain muses "How bad does David Brooks suck?", while Michelle Malkin subtly slams him by saying, "It’s David Brooks who needs to grow up."

But my absolute favorite reaction to Brooks' latest babble comes from Russ at That's Right. He captured my feelings towards Brooks and his verbal vomitus perfectly with this:

"David Brooks is a blithering idiot. Period. Fully aware of sounding like a pompous ass myself, by whatever metric you choose to measure intelligence, I would dust Brooks twice on any topic before breakfast."

Not only that, but I'll go farther. If you put this elitist jerk (or Obama... or most of Congress) in the real world with $10 bucks in his pocket and did the same with me (or most of the "uneducated class" Brooks looks down his nose at) and said "Now go survive!" - at the end of the bitter winter only one of us would be still standing. His glorious education may have equipped him for feeling superior to the rest of us, but I doubt it would serve him in any practical survival sense. Personally, I'll keep my practical skills and common sense, which will be more useful to me in life. And if things ever get too bad, maybe Brooks can figure out how to eat his education.

------------
UPDATE: Linked by RepublicanRedefined. Thanks!
Also, linked back by That's Right.

Blogging Is Bad For My Mental Health? BMD

Seems there's a lot to learn about my new obsession devourer of free time hobby. In the few months I've been blogging I've picked up a lot of information and a few new skills, but I'm constantly reminded how much I don't know yet.

For example? I'm not a tech-savvy person. I'm a borderline Luddite who was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. I'm on Blogger precisely because it seems the most user-friendly, and I'm learning to manipulate little things without getting in over my head. (I tried switching, and rushed back in a near panic.) But I am learning!
　
I also needed to learn about generating traffic to get readers. Thankfully, there's a plan laid out that even I can follow! As part of his "insane scheme to take over the entire freaking blogosphere", Robert Stacy McCain discovered - and shares - 5 Rules to Get A Million Hits. So, I follow the rules to get the hits - and after that it's my responsibility to be interesting enough that folks will come back. Traffic has finally begun to grow a bit.

But then I learned something a little scary.

Turns out this whole blogging deal can be bad for my mental health. Yikes. Good thing I'm only following where others have bravely gone before, and there are those willing to share what they've learned.

As "Blogospheric Neologian", Professor William Jacobson has identified several conditions bloggers need to watch out for. (We could have pushed a campaign for regular screenings and early detection, but Obamacare's about to put an end to niceties like that.) Anyway, if you choose to blog, be on the lookout for the following:

• Blogger Mood Disorder is a condition in which one's mood swings up and down in sync with the level of blog traffic.
• SiteMeter Envy: (1) The point in a blogger's development at which the blogger realizes that other blogs have more traffic, and always will; or (2) the obsessive refreshing of other bloggers' SiteMeters to see if their traffic has increased since the last time you checked it, seven minutes ago.
• Sitemeterenfreude, defined as "deriving pleasure from the failure of other bloggers to generate traffic."

Robert Stacy McCain expands the list further with his own discoveries:

• SiteMeter Fever -- A neurosis typified by obsessively refreshing your SiteMeter to see if your traffic has increased since the last time you checked it, seven minutes ago.
• Bloggernoia -- This psychotic disorder involves the suspicion that other bloggers have malevolent motives for not linking you.

And in my brief time as a blogger I believe I've discovered another, related disorder. Recently, I had my biggest traffic bump yet. At the peak of my Sitemeter traffic increase (at which point I was already suffering extreme SiteMeter Fever), I was struck - nay, clobbered - by a virus that literally flattened me. While wrapped in my electric blankie, fevered and grouchy, I began to suffer from delusions... namely:

• Blogochondria-- The irrational belief that fate has conspired with the flu virus (or microscopic annoyance of your choice) to stop you from actively blogging, thereby causing your Sitemeter "bump" to trickle away to the previous low-flow rate.
  

...sigh...

I hope there aren't more of these surprises to come. My mental health was questionable before I started blogging (Why else would I have started?)... Here's hoping with regular self-checks, and the determination to seek professional help if it becomes an issue, I can carry on long enough to celebrate MY first million hits!

The Other McCain Is Movin' On Up!

Reading through the blogs this morning, I saw that Robert Stacy McCain & Co-Blogger Smitty have started the New Year in their New Digs. Congratulations!

Check out the new The Other McCain here.

I've also updated the link in my blogroll.

Here's wishing you continued success in your "insane scheme to take over the entire freaking blogosphere"! Thanks for helping to lead the way, and thanks from ALL of us little guys for sharing the 5 Rules! May your tip jar over flow!

I'm not even a football fan, but what the hell..... ROLL TIDE!

Keira Knightley Can't Cook

Keira Knightley has been taking heat from the tabloids for years over her weight. Accusations of eating disorders (or being Natalie Portman's late-afternoon shadow) have hounded her, and even made her worry for her career.

Turns out there's a simple explanation...



She can't cook.

In a recent interview, Keira says:

"I am not the best cook in the world. I have tried, but I really am
hopeless. I can cook maybe one dish. But even then, if you ate it, you'd
probably end up with food poisoning. Recently, a friend explained how to make an
eggplant bake. I brought it out of the oven in this beautiful bowl - and dropped
it. It smashed all over the kitchen, and I burst into tears. Which is why I will
ask Santa for some easy-to-understand cook books."

Someone should tell her she can afford take out.

Otherwise, people should let her be. From what I can tell, she's always been skinny. Some people are just naturally that way. And if she can't cook, that will only aggravate the problem.

In fact, almost every picture I found when doing this post showed her looking too thin.
Almost.

See... She looks fine. Give the girl a break. And the number for her nearest Domino's.




Enjoy your Rule 5 Sunday.

Thanks as always to The Other McCain for the Rule 5 Sunday linky love!

This week I managed a three-fer threeway threesome TRIFECTA! Check out my other R5S posts! Here's a dose of Pam Anderson, and some Faux-nekkid protesters for ya!

And remember to keep an eye on the NEW The Other McCain site. Looks like it's coming together nicely!
----------------
Thanks for coming! While you're here, please check out the rest of my blog... see what Makes My Brain Itch!

"If We Can't get Them Out, We'll Breed Them Out"

I read something on The Other McCain that I think was posted in a joking manner... but it got my mind rolling. Stacy said:

My wife and I have six kids. Sarah Palin has five kids. If liberals are trying
to wipe out opposition via population control, they're clearly losing -- and
it's easy to see what their problem is.

I'm also a proud parent of six. (Population boom be damned.) And I got thinking about people I know personally, their political leanings and family sizes, and I think there is a pattern. I'm not sure I agree with McCain as to the why of it ("manly men and womanly women" is his theory), but it seems there is something to it.

From a USAToday article "The Liberal Baby Bust":

"What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many
differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are
nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more
kids than dogs."

Now... I suppose you could read that as "People in Seattle really like dogs!", but Utah actually has a higher birth rate than Washington, AND a lower abortion rate. So, I compared the maps available at those links with the red/blue map of the US... Even I was surprised. (Or maybe ONLY I am surprised.) The match up isn't exact, but it IS striking.

Also, from a SFGate article:

Liberal women are statistically more likely to delay childbirth into later
years than are conservative women, and they may also be more open to abortion,
although the data is unclear. Gays and lesbians, who vote Democratic by a
roughly 4-1 ratio, are much less likely to have children than heterosexuals. And
some on the left advocate fewer children as "socially responsible" to lessen the
toll on the planet's finite resources.

Hmmm. Maybe McCain was on to something with the "manly men and womanly women", too...

But there's more. While blacks tend largely toward democratic and liberal candidates, they have a lower birth rate AND a much higher abortion rate than whites. A voting bloc that the liberals depend on is shrinking. And while Nancy Pelosi has five children, she's the exception to the rule because her congressional district has fewer children than any other in America.

Soooo... It certainly seems there is something to the "Fertility Gap" between conservatives and liberals. And despite the best efforts of progressives, most conservatives are still having more kids than their liberal counterparts. From that same USAToday article:

The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose
members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural
movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their
emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of
people who did raise children.

This gives me great hope. It means the attempt to curtail propagation is only working on ONE side of things, and eventually there will not be enough liberal and progressive voters to inflict their damage on America anymore.

It may seem odd to look to a villain (even from a movie) for inspiration, but the first thing I thought of on reading McCain's piece was Evil King Longshanks, from the movie "Braveheart". As he struggles with the problem of too many Scots in Scotland, he hits upon a solution:

"If we can't get them out... we'll BREED them out!"

So take heart, conservatives. We'll weather these storms, and the future is looking better for us than for them. A time will come when their policies fail by simple numbers of voters. You now know what you need to do for your country.

Who would've thought something could be a patriotic duty -- and still be so much fun!

Heh. Reminded me of this:



Well, off to do my part......................